Full Opinion

USCA11 Case: 25-14210 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 11/04/2026 Page: 1 of 9 NOT FOR PUBLICATION In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-14210 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus DERICK DESIR, Defendant-Appellant. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 2:25-cr-00004-KCD-NPM-1 ____________________ Before ROSENBAUM, BRANCH, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Derick Desir appeals his sentence of 46 months of imprison- ment, after pleading guilty to conspiring to make and making false statements in records required to be kept by firearms dealers. See USCA11 Case: 25-14210 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 11/04/2026 Page: 2 of 9 2 Opinion of the Court 25-14210 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 & 924(a)(1)(A). He argues that the district court erred by applying four-level enhancements for trafficking firearms, see U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(5) (2021), and for “possess[ing] or trans- ferr[ing] the firearms with . . . reason to believe the firearms would be transported out of the United States,” see id. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(A) (2021). After careful review, we affirm Desir’s sentence. I. In April 2025, a federal grand jury returned a superseding in- dictment charging Desir and codefendant Osnyson Desrosiers with conspiring to make and making straw purchases of firearms in May and June of 2022. According to the indictment, Desir and Desrosiers falsely claimed on government forms to be the “actual transferee/buyer” of various firearms purchased in Florida. Desir was charged with conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, and four counts of making a false statement in records required to be kept by licensed firearms dealers, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(1)(A). Desir pled guilty to all counts without a plea agreement. Desir’s presentence investigation report (“PSR”) described the offense conduct as follows. In July and August 2022, Canadian law enforcement authorities recovered multiple Glock firearms in Ontario that had been recently purchased by Desrosiers, a dual United States and Canadian citizen, and then seized Desrosiers’s phone during a border crossing. A review of the contents of Desrosiers’s phone showed that, in late April 2022, Desrosiers and Desir had driven the firearms USCA11 Case: 25-14210 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 11/04/2026 Page: 3 of 9 25-14210 Opinion of the Court 3 from Florida to upstate New York near the border with Canada, where the firearms were provided to another person to smuggle into Canada. Then, on May 10, 2022, Desrosiers sent a text to Desir stating, “This guy running me 30k to come wit to run the play again. But I need help buying.” In other words, Desrosiers would be receiving $30,000 to purchase more firearms and transport them to upstate New York, but he needed Desir’s help buying the guns. Over the next few weeks, Desir purchased a total of twelve Glock firearms from six different Florida firearms dealers, while Desrosiers purchased a total of twenty-three Glock firearms from nine different dealers. During each of the transactions, Desir and Desrosiers falsely claimed on government forms—ATF Form 4473, to be specific—that they were the “actual transferee/buyer” of the firearms, even though they knew they were acquiring the firearms on behalf of someone else. In late June 2022, Desrosiers transported the firearms to up- state New York, where they were “provided to another individual on or about June 26, 2022, to smuggle into Canada.” Eleven of the firearms purchased by Desir or Desrosiers were later recovered in Canada during Canadian law enforcement investigations. Using the 2021 Guidelines Manual, the probation officer cal- culated a total offense level of 23 and criminal-history category of I, for a guideline range of 46 to 57 months. In calculating the of- fense level, the probation officer applied two different four-level enhancements: (1) for trafficking firearms under § 2K2.1(b)(5), be- cause Desir knew or had reason to believe that his conduct would USCA11 Case: 25-14210 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 11/04/2026 Page: 4 of 9 4 Opinion of the Court 25-14210 result in the transfer of firearms to another person who intended to use or dispose of the firearms unlawfully; and (2) under § 2K2.1(b)(6)(A), because Desir “possessed or transferred the fire- arms with knowledge, intent, or reason to believe the firearms would be transported out of the United States.” At sentencing, Desir objected to the trafficking enhance- ment under § 2K2.1(b)(5), arguing that he had no knowledge of who was receiving the firearms or that the receiving party intended to use or dispose of the firearms unlawfully. Defense counsel acknowledged that Desir drove to New York with Desrosiers to transport firearms in April 2022, but he argued that Desir did not know the guns would be smuggled into Canada or that their ulti- mate disposal was illegal. Desir did not object to the exportation enhancement under § 2K2.1(b)(6)(A). The district court overruled Desir’s objection, finding that, even if it was “arguable as to whether he knew,” Desir “certainly had reason to know the firearms were going to be smuggled into Canada.” The court noted that Desir had helped transport a prior shipment of guns from Florida to New York near the Canadian bor- der, and that he knew Desrosiers had been asked to “run the play again”—that is, to buy more guns in Florida and bring them to up- state New York. After adopting the factual statements and guideline calcula- tions of the PSR, and hearing argument from the parties about an appropriate sentence, the district court sentenced Desir to 46 months’ imprisonment. Desir now appeals. USCA11 Case: 25-14210 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 11/04/2026 Page: 5 of 9 25-14210 Opinion of the Court 5 II. Desir first argues that the trial court erred in applying the four-level enhancement for trafficking firearms under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(5) (2021). He contends that there was insufficient evi- dence that he knew or had reason to believe that the firearms would be brought into Canada. We review the district court’s “application of the sentencing guidelines de novo and its factual findings for clear error.” United States v. Asante, 782 F.3d 639, 642 (11th Cir. 2015). The government bears the burden of proving disputed sentencing enhancements by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. “The district court must en- sure that the [g]overnment carries its burden by presenting reliable and specific evidence.” United States v. Almedina, 686 F.3d 1312, 1315 (11th Cir. 2012). Under the 2021 Guidelines, a defendant’s offense level is in- creased by four points if he “engaged in the trafficking of firearms.” U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(5) (2021). According to the relevant commen- tary, this provision applied when the defendant (i) transported, transferred, or otherwise disposed of two or more firearms to another individual, or re- ceived two or more firearms with the intent to transport, transfer, or otherwise dispose of firearms to another individual; and (ii) knew or had reason to believe that such conduct would result in the transport, transfer, or disposal of a firearm to an individual—(I) whose possession or USCA11 Case: 25-14210 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 11/04/2026 Page: 6 of 9 6 Opinion of the Court 25-14210 receipt of the firearm would be unlawful; or (II) who intended to use or dispose of the firearm unlawfully. U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1, n.13(A). 1 In applying this enhancement, we look “not to what actually happened to the firearms, but instead to the circumstances known to the defendant.” Asante, 782 F.3d at 644. In Asante, for example, we upheld the application of the firearms-trafficking enhancement where the defendant told his codefendant that he was transporting firearms to make money, directed the codefendant to purchase smaller caliber guns to facilitate the transport, and was aware that those firearms would be concealed in cars and shipped abroad to his brother in Jamaica. Id. at 646. Here, the district court did not err in applying the four-level firearms-trafficking enhancement. Looking to the “circumstances known to the defendant,” Asante, 782 F.3d at 644, the record shows that Desir acted as a straw buyer for a total of twelve Glock hand- guns, several of which were the same model, knowing that, just like the prior trip in which he participated, the guns would be trans- ported from Florida to upstate New York near the border with 1 Courts “may not defer” to the commentary to the Sentencing Guidelines “if uncertainty does not exist” in the text of the guideline itself. United States v. Dupree, 57 F.4th 1269, 1275 (11th Cir. 2023) (en banc). But we have relied on the commentary of a guideline where “[n]o party contest[ed] the commen- tary’s validity . . . or the propriety of its interpretation of [the guideline’s] text.” United States v. Jews, 74 F.4th 1325, 1327 n.2 (11th Cir. 2023). And here, the parties do not dispute the validity of the commentary. USCA11 Case: 25-14210 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 11/04/2026 Page: 7 of 9 25-14210 Opinion of the Court 7 Canada. He also knew that Desrosiers was offered $30,000 for the gun shipment. In addition, Desir falsified forms and attempted to conceal the nature of his conduct by spreading the purchases out across two weeks and six different firearms dealers. The district court reasonably inferred that Desir had reason to believe that his conduct would result in the transfer of the fire- arms to a person who intended to use or dispose of the firearms unlawfully. See Asante, 782 F.3d at 645–46. That the evidence may support a contrary inference is not enough to warrant relief. See Cooper v. Harris, 581 U.S. 285, 293 (2017) (stating that, under clear error review, “[a] finding that is ‘plausible’ in light of the full rec- ord—even if another is equally or more so—must govern.”). Desir’s remaining arguments are unconvincing. He claims that the April 2022 trip to New York was not “relevant conduct” under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3, but he concedes that this trip “gives con- text” to his subsequent straw purchasing in May 2022 in pursuit of the plan “to run the play again.” Thus, the district court properly considered the prior trip as part of the “the circumstances known to the defendant” at the time he engaged in the relevant offense conduct. See Asante, 782 F.3d at 644. Desir also asserts that the April 2022 trip is minimally proba- tive. But it tends to show that Desir knew Desrosiers was trans- porting guns from Florida to upstate New York near the border with Canada, and that the guns Desir helped procure in May 2022 were destined for the same location. Even assuming Desir was un- aware of other details of the trafficking operation, the information USCA11 Case: 25-14210 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 11/04/2026 Page: 8 of 9 8 Opinion of the Court 25-14210 he did know was sufficient to support the application of the fire- arms-trafficking enhancement. See id. at 644–46. Therefore, we affirm the district court’s application of § 2K2.1(b)(5) (2021). III. Desir also argues that the district court plainly erred in ap- plying the four-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(A) (2021). See United States v. Aguilar-Ibarra, 740 F.3d 587, 592 (11th Cir. 2014) (stating that we review challenges raised for the first time on appeal for plain error only). Under plain-error review, the defendant must show (1) an error (2) that was plain and (3) that affected his substantial rights. Rosales-Mireles v. United States, 585 U.S. 129, 134–35 (2018). If those conditions are met, we will correct the error if (4) it “seriously af- fects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceed- ings.” Id. at 135 (quotation marks omitted). “An error is not plain unless the explicit language of a statute or rule specifically resolves the issue or there is precedent from the Supreme Court or us di- rectly resolving it.” United States v. Hamilton, 168 F.4th 1354, 1365 (11th Cir. 2026). Under the 2021 Guidelines, a four-level enhancement ap- plies if the defendant “possessed or transferred any firearm or am- munition with knowledge, intent, or reason to believe that it would be transported out of the United States.” U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(A) (2021). Here, Desir cannot show plain error. As explained above, Desir had reason to believe that the guns he bought for Desrosiers USCA11 Case: 25-14210 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 11/04/2026 Page: 9 of 9 25-14210 Opinion of the Court 9 would be transported to upstate New Year near the border with Canada, and that someone had paid a substantial sum ($30,000) for the shipment. To be sure, the record lacks additional evidence of Desir’s knowledge of whether or how the guns would be smuggled into Canada. But cf. Asante, 782 F.3d at 646 n.5 (noting that the de- fendant’s statements showed he was aware of and involved in transporting the guns to his brother in Jamaica). Even so, neither the guideline nor controlling precedent makes it clear or obvious under current law that the undisputed facts in the PSR were insuf- ficient to provide “reason to believe that [the firearms] would be transported out of the United States.” U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(A) (2021); see Hamilton, 168 F.4th at 1365. IV. For these reasons, we affirm Desir’s total sentence of 46 months’ imprisonment. AFFIRMED.